Administrative Code § 8-107 (5) prohibits a landlord from refusing to accept a Section 8 voucher from an existing tenant or refusing a lease to a prospective tenant who seeks to pay rent with a Section 8 voucher (Rakhman v Alco Realty I, L.P., 81 AD3d 424 [1st Dept 2011]).
In Alston v Starrett City, Inc. (161 AD3d 37, 40 [1st Dept 2018]), this Court in addressing the City HRL noted that the vouchers were used to cover rent as well as security deposits, however, we never expressly addressed the issue of whether security deposit vouchers constitute lawful sources of income. It is clear that the government-issued security vouchers constitute a form of public assistance and housing assistance. They are issued pursuant to Social Services Law § 143-c, contained in article 5, title 1 of the Social Services Law, which is intended to "provide adequately for those unable to maintain themselves" (Social Services Law § 131 [1]). Social Services Law § 143-c (4) states that the section applies to "federally-aided categories of public assistance." Clearly, they also constitute a form of housing assistance.
Plaintiff's arguments that the security deposit vouchers are not "income" because the term "income" applies to means of paying "rent," not means of paying a security deposit, and that the City Council intended the phrase "lawful source of income" to refer only to cash, or cash equivalents, to pay rent are without merit. There is nothing in the statute or its legislative history to support such a conclusion.
In adding Administrative Code § 8-107 (5), or "Local Law 10," to the City HRL, the City Council stated: